9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by two partners, Shri F. and Miss T. We were told by the learned counsel for the assessee, and this is not disputed by the Revenue, that Shri K. was a working partner and Miss T. had contributed a major part of the capital. There is also no dispute that the firm was dissolved in August, 1967, and thereafter the crane business was taken over by Shri K. though ultimately a Court Receiver had to be appointed on account of long disputes between the two partners. Although the returns of income were filed for the two years showing total income of Rs. 50,572 for the first year and Rs. 32,734 for the second year, the ITO had made heavy assessments on total income of Rs. 2,31,800 and Rs. 67,740 respectively. The appellant, who is Miss T. had fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a longwhile, that the firm had to be dissolved because of that factor, that a Court Receiver had to be ultimately appointed to take over the crane business and that even the CIT had admitted revision petitioners, though late by two years, taking all the difficulties into consideration. He pointed out that even when the returns were filed on 23rd Dec., 1971 by Miss T. that was done merely on the basis of statements furnished to her by Shri K. and even at that stage on books of account could be written, Shri K. being the working partner. He pointed out that the dispute between the partners had gone to such an extent that Shri K. refused exen to sign Form No. 12, as a result of which the assessee-firm could not be granted registration by the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd when another notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 29th Jan., 1974 and when a summons was issued to her, her authorised Representative did attend before the ITO and explained that books of account were not with her and she had explained the position fully well in her letter dt. 21st Dec., 1973. Inspite of this, he pointed out, another summons was issued and Miss. T. did attend and given her statement of the ITO. He pointed out that all the notices issued were under s. 143(2) of the Act and there was really no question of default because under s. 143(2) it is the assessee who is given option of producing whatever evidence he or it has, to produce on which the assessee would like to rely. He, therefore, claimed that the penalties under s. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies encountered. Miss T. did try to the file the returns in 1971 on the basis of whatever material she could gather from the other partner with whom her relations were not cordial. Taking all these factors into consideration, we hold that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the returns in time. We cancel the penalties under s. 271(1)(a) for forth the year. 6. There is also no justification for maintaining the penalties under s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. From the order-sheet entries filed before us, we notice that either Shri K. or Miss T. did attend whenever a notice under s. 143(2) was issued and it was only on one occasion i.e. on 29th Jan., 1974 that no one attended. This was possibly because Mrs. T. could have felt as claimed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
